Proclaiming the Stark Realities: An Enquiry into the Multifaceted Challenges Encountered by the Insolvency Professionals in Corporate Restructuring and Asset Recovery—A Thematic Analysis

Insolvency professionals (IP) play a critical role in managing businesses with financial distress, protecting the interests of stakeholders, and ensuring legal and regulatory compliances. The laws for IP in India and the European Union (EU) show differences in professional conduct, appointment procedures, enforcement mechanisms, and differ cooperation when businesses have financially distressed businesses across borders. The EU’s Insolvency Regulation (Recast) 2015/848 seeks to harmonize member states’ practices closer by helping IP from different jurisdictions work together. India’s IBC, 2016 sets up a comprehensive and centralized regulatory framework administered by the Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). Despite these frameworks, IP faces challenges in both jurisdictions including conflicts of interest, eccentric legal interpretations, extensive procedures to deal with, and difficulties in implementing crossborder insolvency measures. The EU model, while being very collaborative, faces jurisdictional issues and enforcement challenges, whereas India’s system is thorough but suffers from slow resolution times and uneven professional regulation. Thus, this study undertakes a comparative analysis of roles, responsibilities, and challenges of insolvency professionals under both systems. The paper aims to provide policy recommendations toward improved governance, efficiency, and accountability of insolvency professionals, by identifying best practices from the EU model. By addressing these issues, this study seeks to strengthen India’s insolvency framework, ensuring transparency, efficiency, and improved cooperation in dealing with cross-border insolvency cases.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, represents one of the most significant legal and economic reforms in India aimed at addressing the long-standing challenges of corporate insolvency, financial distress, and asset recovery. This study evaluates the effectiveness of insolvency resolution processes under the IBC by examining its structural framework, implementation experiences, and actual outcomes across various sectors. The Code’s emphasis on time-bound resolution, creditor empowerment, and market-driven mechanisms has contributed to a more disciplined credit environment and improved recovery rates compared to the pre-IBC era. However, despite these achievements, the resolution framework continues to face substantial challenges including delays in case disposal, frequent litigation, capacity constraints within the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), limited bidder interest in certain industries, and inconsistencies in recovery values. The study also highlights sector-specific complexities, operational limitations of insolvency professionals, and ambiguities arising from evolving judicial interpretations. Recent reforms and policy developments, including amendments to the IBC and initiatives to strengthen institutional infrastructure, demonstrate ongoing efforts to enhance efficiency and transparency. Overall, the study concludes that while the IBC has significantly transformed India’s insolvency landscape, continuous refinement and capacity building are essential to ensure the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of insolvency resolution processes.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was implemented with the object of optimising the values for all the stakeholders involved. The successful implementation of the Code is dependent majorly on the four pillars prescribed by it, namely, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), the Adjudicating Authorities, the Information Utility (IU) and the Insolvency Professional Agency (IPA) and its member professionals i.e. the Insolvency Professionals (IP) or Insolvency Professional Entities (IPE). To register as IP, a professional has to clear the Limited Insolvency Examination, designed by the IBBI. This write up majorly focuses on the syllabus of the exams and how to prepare for the same.

<p>Infrastructure Challenges in NCLT Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: A Case Study of Delhi</p>

delivery and availability in India in light of the changes brought about by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The introduction of the Code is purported to resolve the issues within the credit ecosystem by identifying correctly all the stakeholders, most importantly the creditors and the debtors, resolving and settling non-performing assets, creating a robust mechanism for settling credit-related disputes, reducing creditor distrust and ensuring continuance of functioning of companies rather than being wound up for non-payment of debts.While the Code promises to be a game changer, there exist various challenges that need to be addressed as the success of the Code is dependent on the manner in which its provisions are implemented, especially those pertaining to the strict timelines with parties seeking excessive discretionary indulgence from the adjudicatory authorities. Further, the challenges include impact of differential treatment meted out to the creditors, the committee of creditors being ordained with considerable powers over the fate of the corporate debtor, and the insolvency professionals being allowed to run the entities without much accountability and capability has resulted in an increased number of disputes. The legal, logical and procedural hurdles thus mentioned will need to be addressed in the most amicable manner within the foreseeable future.

Purpose- This paper aims to examine the effectiveness of Insolvency Law in India in addressing cases of corporate distress and enabling them to revive the business through restructuring by passing appropriate resolution as envisaged by the Law. It aims to seek evidence as to whether the ‘creditor driven insolvency resolution’ model has a propensity towards ‘resolution’ or is it driven more towards ‘liquidation’ leading to ‘value erosion.’ Design/Methodology/Approach- The paper is descriptive in nature. The paper studies the practice and impact of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in India. The data reported by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India have been used to examine the Insolvency law in practice. Findings- The author argues that Indian Insolvency Law tends to lean towards ‘Liquidation’ of distressed entity rather than ‘Reorganization’ of the entity against legal wisdom behind insolvency laws to promote revival of the distressed entity. The authors also imprint that increasing instances of withdrawal of admitted cases from IBC is an indicator of distressed entities resorting to informal methods of resolving cases outside IBC. Originality/Value- The paper puts across the dichotomy between ‘intention’ and ‘impact’ of Insolvency law in India. The study highlights deviation of insolvency resolution framework in India from the ‘Evolutionary Theory’ which states that increased dispersion of corporate ownership would lead to increased affinity towards ‘manager driven insolvency regime.’ Practical Implications-This study would be useful to insolvency resolution regulators, insolvency professionals and government to examine the insolvency law framework to improve effectiveness of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in practice.

Differential Treatment Among and Within Classes of Creditors Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Issues and Suggestions

Is the Almighty Entitled to the Almighty Dollar of the Bankrupt? Free Exercise Issues in the Bankruptcy Code

The scope of this paper is to investigate the recovery of assets by the Federal Attorney General's Office in cases of acts harmful to the Public Administration, as a normative guideline for the actions of Union, Federal District, State and Municipal entities, by applying the precepts presented symmetrically. From the perspective of the methodological approach adopted for the research, the recovery of assets in cases of acts harmful to the State is examined, based on §§ 4 and 5 of article 37 of the Federal Constitution, which provide for administrative sanctioning (acts of administrative improbity and acts against the Public Administration provided for in Law nº 12.846/2013) and civil indemnity (reimbursement to the treasury), with the study falling into the administrative and civil legal categories. To this end, the general objective of the research is to examine the recovery of assets by the Attorney General's Office in cases of acts harmful to public assets, from the perspective of Democratic Constitutionalism and the fundamental rights to good public administration and the protection of the treasury, with the systematization of a model applicable by symmetry to other political entities. Developed using the monographic method, the research methodology is conducted using a qualitative and dialectical approach. In terms of its nature, this is an applied study, the aim of which is to improve the recovery of assets resulting from acts harmful to the Public Administration. In terms of objectives, the study is based on descriptive research, with a presentation of the relevant legal institutes and a dogmatic and pragmatic analysis of the proposed theme. The procedures used in the investigation are bibliographical and documentary research, guided by the bibliographical review of books, articles and periodicals and the collection of public data. In the development of the research, the foundations, the normative framework, the process of asset recovery in cases of acts harmful to the treasury, the specificities of the Union and the performance of the Attorney General's Office were exposed, with the presentation of data from the annual reports of proactive action of the National Attorney General's Office of Public Assets and Probity for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. After the study, it was concluded that it is possible to systematize the matter based on the actions of the Federal Attorney General's Office, through application by symmetry to other political entities, and that the effective recovery of assets in cases of acts harmful to the Public Administration, within the scope of the Democratic Constitutional State, is essential for the effectiveness of the fundamental right to the protection of public assets, elevated to the status of a fundamental good. Finally, it became clear that the asset recovery process encounters various legal, technical and operational difficulties, requiring action focused on their causes and possible solutions, such as the specialization of action, the rationalization and selectivity of collection, the expansion of research banks, the management and processing of collected data, the strategic management of debtors and the training of the technical staff responsible for collection.

Integrating the UNCITRAL Model Law into India's Insolvency Framework; Challenges and Solutions

The Name of Author(s); Vidya A R Institution; Christ Academy Institute of Law, Bengaluru Designation; Assistant Professor in Law Mail Address; vidyasureskamath@gmail.com Contact Number; 8547422734 Seema Nagaraj Institution; Christ Academy Institute of Law, Bengaluru Designation; Assistant Professor in Management Mail Address; bseema118@gmail.com Contact Number; 99001 55366 Title Aligning Indian insolvency law with an IP-driven startup economy Abstract Entrepreneurs fuel innovation by spotting opportunities, disrupting norms, and turning ideas into impactful ventures. Their willingness to take risks nurtures creativity, leading to novel products, services, and models. Innovation helps them stay competitive, adapt to evolving markets, and generate value, driving economic growth while advancing societal development and progress. Innovation oriented startups in India, particularly in deep tech, edtech, and digital technologies, increasingly rely on intellectual property (IP) as their primary asset. However, according to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, IP is like any other asset during insolvency, without adequate protections or valuation frameworks. This creates significant challenges like IP is often undervalued due to limited technical expertise, licensee rights face uncertainty, and insolvency professionals lack adequate tools to manage intangible assets effectively. A major research gap lies in the absence of legal scholarship addressing the IBC’s structural and procedural shortcomings in handling IP. While the IBC promotes entrepreneurship through mechanisms such as the Fast Track process, it does not recognize IP’s distinct character or provide mechanisms to preserve its value in distressed situations. This study concentrates on the important question as to How Indian insolvency law should be restructured to treat IP as a distinct asset class, through valuation protocols, ownership safeguards, and procedural protections to strengthen innovation and improve outcomes for startups and creditors. Methodologically, the research involves: (1) Innovation and entrepreneurs (2) analyzing IBC provisions and case law; (3) comparing international practices, particularly from the developed countries like U.S. and U.K.; (4) engaging stakeholders including insolvency professionals, entrepreneurs, IP experts, and regulators; and (5) drafting reform proposals such as specialized IP valuation panels, licensing continuity frameworks, and targeted legal amendments. The expected outcome is a context-sensitive legal framework that enhances the treatment of IP in insolvency, safeguards innovation, supports entrepreneurs, and improves creditor recovery, ultimately aligning Indian insolvency law with an IP-driven startup economy. Keywords Innovation, Entrepreneurs, IP, IBC, Legal framework

In Canada, the public interest has always been a significant consideration in the restructuring of insolvent corporations. And with the introduction of new proceedings under Canada's restructuring statute, liquidating proceedings, an important consideration is whether these proceedings are in the public interest. Unfortunately, although the Supreme Court in Century Services traced the history of the CCAA and spoke of its remedial purpose, it did not discuss liquidating CCAAs or how they can be reconciled with the public interest purpose of the legislation, which leaves unanswered questions about the seemingly contradictory purpose of the CCAA and the nature of these liquidating plans of arrangement, and their impact on the public interest.Given the importance of achieving a public interest goal in CCAA proceedings, it is important to determine how to conceptualize liquidating CCAA proceedings as working towards that goal. Eight decades ago, when the CCAA was enacted, the types of proceedings taking place under the legislation were different because the asset bases of corporations were different. Reconciling these changing proceedings with the public interest goal of the legislation is necessary if proceedings are going to continue evolving under the CCAA.The argument in this paper took a broad, value‐based approach. I maintain that so long as the ‘public interest’ can be defined to include the continuance of value in the economy, in any form, then any proceedings, regardless of form or outcome, that add value or serves to maintain the value already there, would fulfill that purpose of the CCAA. Put another way, so long as the proceeding causes value to be retained that is more than the sum of its parts, I argue that it is in the public interest. Conversely, if value is lost in liquidation because certain assets cannot be valued and sold, then these proceedings (or any proceedings) are not achieving the goal of the legislation. But the answer is not to cease taking these proceedings; it is to find a way to acknowledge and account for the value of intangible assets. Once that happens, a more accurate determination can be made as to how to proceed in any restructuring.I drew three conclusions in this paper. First, the public interest in the context of the CCAA should be considered in the context of value maximization rather than the welfare of the different constituencies. This should take into account the changing nature of corporate assets, and the public interest in this paper refers to the interests of directly and indirectly affected stakeholders of the corporation. Second, corporations have changed since the enactment of the CCAA. Their assets have evolved to become less firm or industry specific, and they have also become less tangible. Third, the consideration of value added in a restructuring of a corporation containing intangible assets is difficult because these assets have value not easily quantified. In addition, although tangible assets have evolved to become less firm specific, intangibles remain firm specific, and unless they can be transferred to another company as a whole, much of their value is lost. Once those premises are accepted, then a liquidation of a modern corporation leads to a potential loss of value, which means the public interest, one of the underlying considerations of the CCAA, may well not be served unless a way can be devised to value these evolving intangible assets. Copyright © 2013 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This chapter examines fiduciary duties in bankruptcy and insolvency, focusing on the bankruptcy trustee’s duties, which are triggered by virtue of appointment in a case. It first provides a background on bankruptcy law in order to elucidate the doctrines and rules affecting fiduciary responsibilities in bankruptcy, citing a number of relevant provisions in the Bankruptcy Code. It then considers the fiduciary, non-fiduciary, and anti-fiduciary obligations of the trustee under the Bankruptcy Code before discussing the fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. In particular, it highlights bankruptcy-related issues raised by the duty of loyalty with respect to secured creditors, priority unsecured creditors, general unsecured creditors, and debtors. It also explores the byzantine protective remedies available to trustees should there be a breach of fiduciary duty and concludes with an analysis of miscellaneous additional duties of the trustee in insolvency, as well as the unique challenges the debtor-in-possession (DIP) faces with its duty of loyalty. The chapter suggests that the Bankruptcy Code has many safeguards designed to confront conflicting creditor incentives, both against the DIP and in insolvency, that help fill the gaps left by reliance upon fiduciary duty law alone.

This study aims to evaluate the impact of asset recovery on the Bireuen District Attorney's Office on law enforcement and corruption eradication in the Bireuen Regency Government. This research is classified as literature research with a qualitative approach. The methodology used is a normative juridical study of the Attorney General's Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 7 of 2020 concerning the Second Amendment to the Attorney General's Regulation Number PER-027/A/JA/ 10/2014 concerning Guidelines for Asset Recovery. The results of the study concluded that asset recovery by the Bireuen District Attorney's Office had a significant positive impact on law enforcement and corruption eradication in Bireuen Regency. Asset recovery strengthens public trust in law enforcement agencies, increases accountability, and reduces corruption.

The eradication of corruption is not only limited to imprisonment for perpetrators, but also optimally recaptures what has been taken by corruptors (asset recovery). This action needs to be done in order to create a deterrent effect for corruptors and return the state property. Corruption eradication in Southeast Asia, especially by ASEAN member countries, has not shown seriousness. This fact shown from Transparency International report. The majority of ASEAN country member have not been optimal in the orientation of asset recovery in handling corruption cases. How could ASEAN countries eradicate corruption through asset recovery efforts? This study uses a normative comparative method through a qualitative approach. Based on the results of the study found that the level of corruption in Southeast Asia is not the worst, but also not in a safe condition from the threat of corruption and is still classified as an area of concern. Brunei Darussalam, the Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore are among the countries that have succeeded in increasing corruption eradication scores. Indonesia and Thailand become countries that struggle hard to eradicate corruption while Vietnam and Laos are considered to be countries that are still lacking in fighting corruption. Based on the results of the study, it was found that the recovery of corruption assets is still a matter of little concern by the majority of countries except Singapore and Malaysia. In eradicating corruption, particularly in asset recovery, ASEAN needs to have a political will determined and become a law in conducting multilateral cooperation. The agreement must be set forth in the form of regional cooperation that has a strong tie so that this can help efforts to eradicate corruption in ASEAN.